Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
2012
unknownj


And thus true colours are once more revealed on the part of the United States government, and I couldn't be less shocked. For those who don't yet know, Iraq has told the UN that they're willing to allow weapons inspectors to return, unconditionally. The US reaction to this is that it means nothing, isn't nearly enough for them, and that Iraq is probably just playing a game. So effectively, we see that America's goals here are not weapons inspections.

The potential for unprovoked assault on nations which threaten US interests is disgusting and irresponsible. For a country to believe themselves to be so in the right as to flaunt world opinion and make plans for war regardless of the situation borders on frightening. News reports rattle on about the Iraqi regime having the know-how to build a nuclear device if they had fissile material. I never considered the idea that they didn't have that knowledge - in today's world, freedom of information and technology is an important reason that we are as developed as a race as we are. To my mind, the fight has never been to stop the knowledge of how to build weapons, but to stop the need to build weapons, and if necessary, the materials required to build weapons.

It has been stated repeatedly that action against Iraq will not take place for several more months, if at all. World leaders, even those who would like to see such an attack, have admitted that while Saddam poses a potential threat, he is not immediately dangerous, and that it will take him time to become sufficiently powerful and well equipped to be a nuisance.

So I'm now left wondering why it is that the US is so eager to continue with their violent and aggressive stance here. If Iraq won't be dangerous for months, then why not send inspectors in now, and if Saddam is just playing some sort of game, then we'll know before it's too late anyway, right?

It is my long-considered opinion that the US government are Americans, not Humans. I don't mean to suggest that the two are in some way mutually exclusive - merely that their foremost consideration is to the American people, rather than all the people of the world. And I know many Americans, and indeed people of all nationalities who think that this is the sort of stance their governments should take. And I can't help but wonder why...

The United States is very willing to involve itself in disputes and conflicts outside its own borders, largely because this enables them to settle said disputes in a way that suits them. It's never about doing what's right, or what's best for the masses, but about serving US interests abroad. And officials and citizens often think that this is the right way to behave, because it's what being a politician is all about. How did the world get to this point where power is the most important thing? Whatever happened to happiness? Whatever happened to the happiness in making others happy?

Ultimately, it doesn't come down to what's right. It comes down to what's right for America, and by extension, what's right for Britain etc. Apparently, we're either with them or against them. If anybody knows where the Sign-Up sheet for "against" is, let me know.....

  • 1
hurrah, and hear hear. Well put. Why'd you cut it?
Believe me, it was far better than my own uneloquent pissed off rant, and far better than much of my friends page, filled with msn convos and day summaries..
anyway, just wanted to let you know that someone read and was impressed, but I've kind of disintegrated into rambling, so I will go.

Erin

I never used to cut stuff, but then I realised that if I want an audience, then there are certain things I have to consider. The first is that I honestly don't believe that there's a single person in the world who reads every post I make. As such, I'm starting from a position where I'm always going to be filling up peoples' friends pages with posts they don't want. So it just seems easier to cut them...

And thanks - it was your (good) rant that reminded me that I had mine on my hard disk - I added a couple of paragraphs to bring it up to date, and it was done. I wrote about five pieces like that last week, on various topics, but never posted them. Four to go....

Good stuff, although the key phrases "oil interests" and "self interest" are missing. ;)

It is my belief that "oil interests" are implied wherever the phrase "United States of America" is uttered :o)

Quote from The Daily Telegraph:

Larry Lindsey, President George W Bush's economic advisor, said increased oil production in a free Iraq could drive down oil prices.
"When there is a change of regime in Iraq, you could add 3 - 5 million barrels (per day) of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy"

But that has nothing to do with the war, obviously.........

Bush: The evil Iraqi dictatorship must let UN inspectors in unconditionally, or we will have no choice but to attack!

Hussein: Okay, UN inspectors are now allowed in unconditionally.

Bush: Errr... we must attack!

Anyone else see a problem with this?



Obviously.

And you would be a fool and a communist to make such a connection.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account